header-logo header-logo

Under new rule (3)

14 April 2011 / David Burrows
Issue: 7461 + 7462 / Categories: Features , Mediation , Family
printer mail-detail

In his third FPR update David Burrows looks at costs savings, case management & mediation

Few would disagree that the legal costs associated with most litigation are a blight on the finances of many of the parties involved. With family proceedings, the problem is at its most stark where, often, the parties’ means and the lawyers fees are part of the assets and liabilities over which much family litigation rages.

An argument can be advanced that the new Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010) do little to assist with costs savings. The new rules can be seen—sometimes by omission, sometimes almost deliberately—as stoking up costs: many rules lack logic and will be expensive for the judges to clarify; disclosure rules are confused and aspects of rules as to expert evidence (eg, instruction of joint experts) are deliberately more expensive than under CPR 1998.

This article, the third in the present series, looks at two particular aspects of the scheme which are central to costs saving, and which are new to

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll